Does The Soul Exist? Evidence Says ‘Yes’

The reality of the soul is among the most important questions of life. Although religions go on and on about its existence, how do we know if souls really exist? A string of new scientific experiments helps answer this ancient spiritual question.

The idea of the soul is bound up with the idea of a future life and our belief in a continued existence after death. It's said to be the ultimate animating principle by which we think and feel, but isn't dependent on the body. Many infer its existence without scientific analysis or reflection. Indeed, the mysteries of birth and death, the play of consciousness during dreams (or after a few martinis), and even the commonest mental operations – such as imagination and memory – suggest the existence of a vital life force – an élan vital – that exists independent of the body.

Yet, the current scientific paradigm doesn't recognize this spiritual dimension of life. We're told we're just the activity of carbon and some proteins; we live awhile and die. And the universe? It too has no meaning. It has all been worked out in the equations – no need for a soul. But biocentrism – a new ‘theory of everything' – challenges this traditional, materialistic model of reality. In all directions, this outdated paradigm leads to insoluble enigmas, to ideas that are ultimately irrational. But knowledge is the prelude to wisdom, and soon our worldview will catch up with the facts.

Of course, most spiritual people view the soul as emphatically more definitive than the scientific concept. It's considered the incorporeal essence of a person, and is said to be immortal and transcendent of material existence. But when scientists speak of the soul (if at all), it's usually in a materialistic context, or treated as a poetic synonym for the mind. Everything knowable about the "soul" can be learned by studying the functioning of the brain. In their view, neuroscience is the only branch of scientific study relevant to understanding the soul.

Traditionally, science has dismissed the soul as an object of human belief, or reduced it to a psychological concept that shapes our cognition of the observable natural world. The terms "life" and "death" are thus nothing more than the common concepts of "biological life" and "biological death." The animating principle is simply the laws of chemistry and physics. You (and all the poets and philosophers that ever lived) are just dust orbiting the core of the Milky Way galaxy.

As I sit here in my office surrounded by piles of scientific books, I can't find a single reference to the soul, or any notion of an immaterial, eternal essence that occupies our being. Indeed, a soul has never been seen under an electron microscope, nor spun in the laboratory in a test tube or ultra-centrifuge. According to these books, nothing appears to survive the human body after death.

While neuroscience has made tremendous progress illuminating the functioning of the brain, why we have a subjective experience remains mysterious. The problem of the soul lies exactly here, in understanding the nature of the self, the "I" in existence that feels and lives life. But this isn't just a problem for biology and cognitive science, but for the whole of Western natural philosophy itself.

Our current worldview – the world of objectivity and naïve realism – is beginning to show fatal cracks. Of course, this will not surprise many of the philosophers and other readers who, contemplating the works of men such as Plato, Socrates and Kant, and of Buddha and other great spiritual teachers, kept wondering about the relationship between the universe and the mind of man.

Recently, biocentrism and other scientific theories have also started to challenge the old physico-chemical paradigm, and to ask some of the difficult questions about life: Is there a soul? Does anything endure the ravages of time?

Life and consciousness are central to this new view of being, reality and the cosmos. Although the current scientific paradigm is based on the belief that the world has an objective observer-independent existence, real experiments suggest just the opposite. We think life is just the activity of atoms and particles, which spin around for a while and then dissipate into nothingness. But if we add life to the equation, we can explain some of the major puzzles of modern science, including the uncertainty principle, entanglement, and the fine-tuning of the laws that shape the universe.

Consider the famous two-slit experiment. When you watch a particle go through the holes, it behaves like a bullet, passing through one slit or the other. But if no one observes the particle, it exhibits the behavior of a wave and can pass through both slits at the same time. This and other experiments tell us that unobserved particles exist only as ‘waves of probability' as the great Nobel laureate Max Born demonstrated in 1926. They're statistical predictions – nothing but a likely outcome. Until observed, they have no real existence; only when the mind sets the scaffolding in place, can they be thought of as having duration or a position in space. Experiments make it increasingly clear that even mere knowledge in the experimenter's mind is sufficient to convert possibility to reality.

Many scientists dismiss the implications of these experiments, because until recently, this observer-dependent behavior was thought to be confined to the subatomic world. However, this is being challenged by researchers around the world. In fact, just this year a team of physicists (Gerlich et al, Nature Communications 2:263, 2011) showed that quantum weirdness also occurs in the human-scale world. They studied huge compounds composed of up to 430 atoms, and confirmed that this strange quantum behavior extends into the larger world we live in.

Importantly, this has a direct bearing on the question of whether humans and other living creatures have souls. As Kant pointed out over 200 years ago, everything we experience – including all the colors, sensations and objects we perceive – are nothing but representations in our mind. Space and time are simply the mind's tools for putting it all together. Now, to the amusement of idealists, scientists are beginning dimly to recognize that those rules make existence itself possible. Indeed, the experiments above suggest that objects only exist with real properties if they are observed. The results not only defy our classical intuition, but suggest that a part of the mind – the soul – is immortal and exists outside of space and time.

"The hope of another life" wrote Will Durant "gives us courage to meet our own death, and to bear with the death of our loved ones; we are twice armed if we fight with faith."

Interestingly, this article states objects behave differently upon observation. They appear the way they are based on our mind's perception. Ultimately our perception and observation gives meaning. Thus, bringing a new meaning to the phrase "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound."

Have you read of people of great faith who drank the most toxic stuff to prove God protects them? It worked, they lived and nothing was wrong. What about a mother who lifts up an entire car to save her child? What about certain religious people putting knives into there body and brain to show their faith with no negative results. What about the documented cases in India and Nepal of people who didn't eat for years? What about the documented cases of people living in the snowy mountains of the Himalayas with hardly any clothing for years?

You want to believe it, yet something scares you, it shakes your every believe, yet, this doesn't mean it isn't true. People fantasize themselves to better health, that makes fantasy reality and a force to acknowledge.

Your thought process is sound. I wouldn't have called it "made up myths", though. Don't be condescending just because you don't believe it. Their opinions are just as valid as yours. I like your last sentence. Asking what they're afraid of. To me, it's simply being afraid of being wrong. What if there is more after death and because you or me or whoever didn't take it seriously we were not given entry or were punished? It's a legitimate question that could have extremely important consequences. It's a question each one of us will have to answer at some point in our lives.

Really? Do you actually have any evidence of these events at all? I'm not denying a god's existence and I have no intention of offending you in any way whatsoever, but could you link these events or explain any possible scientific out look on these things? I'm only trying to look at things objectively here, I bare no ill intent.

Submitted by youcanfoolpeoplesomeofthetime on November 20, 2016 - 2:57pm

These stories have either been proven hoax or the proof is in the eye of the beholder rather then scientific proof having gone through the scientific method. In other words show this proof you speak of. Just one example would be that guy you think didn't eat anything for a year. I did some research on it. For the most part they are just taking his word on it. It's not done under laboratory conditions and he could have easily cheated. That not proof. Faith is gullibility.

dkatinas what about the Christians who were eaten by the lions on the Roman’s arenas? Those Christians and their children had faith like Daniel in the lion’s den; unfortunately Daniel story was nothing more than a fairytale!

In Matthew 18:32-35 He gave a servant back to his master to be tortured because he went out and tried to strangle another servant for owing him money. Not only does Jesus endorse slavery but he also endorses slave abuse.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.” (Matthew 5:17)

“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19)

Either Jesus knew what he was talking about, or he didn’t. If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he should be consistent and believe that the Old Testament and its accounts are correct.

And if Jesus also denounced parts of the Old Testament then he is a hypocrite and not worthy of respect, much less worship.

Stick to science, science boy. You have tried to make a new case for why no one should respect or worship Jesus that has little at all to do with your first claim that Jesus supports slavery. You clearly have little basic Christian understanding of how Jesus is said to have fulfilled the Old Testament law, and that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in Jesus' two instructions to love your neighbour as yourself and love God with all your heart and soul and mind. A black and white literalist approach to myth and theology is a lazy approach, as varying grades of priority and emphasis can readily be drawn from ancient scriptures (usually but not always for good, alas). Anyway, it's all mythology, in my opinion, so you know as little about whether or not Jesus was a trustworthy guy based on what made it into what is now considered canonical as I or anyone else does. And either way, your first claim remains false.

When you wrote your lovely comment trying to defend your lovely god who says that he love us, 1000 ppls died, or more, kids, parents, religious ppls and atheists maybe... or more....so....stop giving 1-10 arguments when ppls were saved when 10000 died in that day. When you will prove me dragons existed .... then i will consider god exist...untill then, kids believe in dragons and idiots in god ^^ (i know...my english sucks...)

I do not know what you are talking about regarding people being saved...? Your reading comprehension cannot be very good either as I stated above that it is all myth in my opinion. I am not defending my "lovely god" as I don't believe in God or gods. I was merely correcting a poster who doesn't know what he is talking about. But I'm flattered that you find my comments "lovely"!

Jesus did indeed support the old testament as good and holy (and necessary). He and his apostles even welcomed slaves in as fellow brothers in Christ.

But why was slavery allowed in the old testament, then, when Jesus/God saw the 'slaves' as being just as important as everyone else was? Well, Jesus/God didn't support slavery, but He knew all too well that people can't be expected to change overnight.

So, God introduced the old testament law that, for the time of the old testament, at least legislated better treatment of slaves, changing things at a pace people could better manage while still challenging them to change. If a baby is just starting to crawl, you don't expect them to suddenly jump up and run the Boston marathon.

There are multiple verses in the Bible endorsing and supporting slavery including the new testament if you don't know this then clearly you haven't read it as much as you think, or you just nit pick what you want to believe either way Google it and you will find the verses

You are an intelligent person, Iffy220. But you must realize that you're only referencing half the parable here. The king/master (who represents God in this story) first forgave the servant of a huge debt.

The king didn't punish the servant and reinstate the debt until the servant refused to be charitable like he had been, until the servant refused to show that same forgiveness for a much smaller debt. God forgives a lot, but He also expects us to glorify Him by forgiving ourselves. We have a responsibility in this deal, too.

Also, in terms of the parable, that second servant was probably just as important to the king as the first--the two servants were on equal footing as far as the king was concerned. So, by refusing to forgive the second servant for a little debt, the first servant was, in a way, saying the king was foolish to forgive him of the big debt--which is rejecting the king.

Philosophy & science are compatible- interlocked, I believe. Most folks do not ever entertain the fact that we each are ultimately alone in our life experience.
I have found this reality to be enlightening, but every once in a while sad.
I enjoyed your piece and have an agnostic friend I will give a copy of it to.

Even religion (or perhaps more accurately and neutrally metaphysics) can be compatible with science as an approach to non-material phenomena. The problem is more ideological, i.e. the way religious believers jump on any evidence of consciousness, 'intelligent design' etc and claim it for their own particular sect or worldview with crude triumphalism.

A very good comment Dominia. Indeed, ideologies are the problem (and not only religious but materialist ideologies too). As science, transpersonal enquires are an attempt to expand beyond ordinary experience. However, while science does this by using instruments such as microscopes or telescopes, spirituality transcend normal perception by the means of personal transformation. If both methods are free from ideological baggage and practice with rigour they are not incompatible. This point is discussed in detail at thesynthesis.info

The soul exists and is as one with the body. The soul is within the physical body and is independent to it although whatever the body does in the short time that it is on earth, it affects the soul. There is another existence (after death of the body) which is not bound to time

If you can gain the emotional sustenance to continue life with that belief and acting on that belief/"objective fact acted dogmatically upon" let me know. I'd like to study you to find meta-death, a new form of null existence based on your null existence.

Love is not the same as an emotion. You cannot choose to have an emotion, just a response to it. You can choose to love someone, despite feelings/emotions toward them. Furthermore, emotions come and go, and love constant.

Attraction is an emotion or a passion. It is not the same as love. We can't help who we're attracted to, but we can help who we actually love.

So, as a married man, I am still attracted and feel emotions toward other women. But I simply don't act on those emotions, and in fact subordinate them to my will. Love is willing the good of another, not at all an emotion.

I don't agree that you choose whom you love. Certainly you can choose the person you become involved with. But love is no more a choice than many other feelings. But on a deeper level, with the absence of free will, it is true that no feeling is a choice, consciously. Love is a feeling, feelings are not a matter of choice.

Yes, we can observe the areas of the brain that trigger (or are triggered by) these emotions, these feelings. We know what the brain is made out of and how signals are sent to our brain. But do we know what these feelings, what these emotions, are. Yes we can measure and record the brain activity that lets us know someone is experiencing these things, yet what are the things we are experiencing? Love, happiness, sadness, anger, all of these phenomena can't be recorded with machines, can't be measured in a test tube. We understand (or at least believe we do) the machine (our brain), yet we don't know what it produces. It is like knowing a water faucet inside and out, but having no clue about the water itself. Are all memories, all thoughts, all feelings just atoms? so far that is what science has us believe. Every intangible thing we experience is just a very small physical particle, nothing more. That may be true, but people should be open minded towards other possibilities. Honestly, I sometimes see atheists acting much more narrow minded and conceited than religious folk. Man does not have all the answers, even though that is what atheists believe. I am agnostic myself, but the more I think about it, the more it all seems to point to something other than physical. Maybe it is just me deluding myself because I fear death, but I don't know.

I will respectfully dissagree with that opinion. Consciousness is merely a model of attention and emotions like love are the brains way of altering attention and ranking its importance based on past experiences, knowledge, ideas rooted in our subconscious, and behavior/personality traits engrained in our dna. My point is that consciousness is merely a result of many physical processes. I could describe a million situations that would prove that theory but heres one that i love. Nationalism. People of any country are predisposed to believe that their country is better than the rest. When confronted on these beliefs they say it has nothing to do with how they were socialized or their life experiences but they believe they made that decision regardless of those things which leads me to wonder do we really make our own choices or do we just thInk we do?

We can prove anything and everything, we just need more time to do it, just because we can't do it today doesn't mean it we won't be able to do it tomorrow. 150 years ago, we didn't even know what an Atom was, yet they've existed for all time and it took us a while to prove it.

Which raises the question what does it mean "to be known"? Whatever the phrase is taken to mean there is no rule saying something must be proven in order to be known.

Philip Benjamin

In a scientific method empirical knowledge must be evidential. A testable working hypothesis becomes empirically proven knowledge with empirical data from experiment and observation.
The hypothesis needs contextual data and complexity from the collective observation, exploration, experience of different sources. Propose theoretical concepts and experimental designs for confirmation.
Hypothesis -->Deduction --> Predictions--> Observations--> Test of predictions--->Induction --> Evaluation and confirmation and confirmation
The views of empirical physicians of ancient Greece had very much in common with the experimental philosophy of the early modern physicians. Both abandoned speculations and principles based on secret essences. Instead, medical cures were derived from reproducible observational experiences or experiments alone. Treatment procedures were believed to have certainty by experiential or experimental validations. Scientific methodology today replaces or reinforces empiricism with experimentation.
In Cartesian dualism the invisible and non-physical mind is an experimental unknown. Today we know that the invisible need not be non-physical or immaterial, dark matter for example. If dark-matter particles interact among themselves it may form chemical bonds (chemistry) and it is reasonable to assume that an "invisible, yet physical" dark-matter body may be formed identical/eidetic to the visible human body. The two may be coupled via the light and dark chemical bonds. "Spin" , magnetic and electric forces may be all involved in these couplings.
Laws of chemistry are the same everywhere in light-matter and dark-matter.

Dark chemical bonds are similar to light chemical bonds. They can stretch, vibrate, rotate, bend and even break causing changes in the composite energetics of the light and dark bonds. These will be ultra-weak changes producing ultra-weak photons. In fact such photons do exist and they are called biophotons which have been experimentally observed and voluminous data of over 25 years are available. If the dark-matter distributions and their bindings are different in plants, animals and humans, that difference must be exhibited in the biophoton emission rates across the taxa which is also experimentally observed with plant cells having ten times more than human cells.

Decoupling of the two bodies means death. The decoupled dark-matter body will be at a negative energy state(-E=mc^2) where m is the body mass. That will be the threshold energy to raise the dark-matter body to functionality and an eerie biophotonic visibility.

so you're the type of person that measures distance in Celsius? Religion is not there for proving. Science and philosophy are. Philosophy gives you the "whos" and "why", while science provides you with the "hows" and "whats". Next time make sure you're comparison is well thought, not a copy-paste from some atheist website. thank you.

About 95% of the universe is invisible (25% dark matter and 70% dark energy). Ignoring its possible role in the biosphere is unwarranted. So at least 95% of all "possible Natural sciences" will remain unknown.

And I believe we're talking about our visible universe, since we don't know how big our universe actually is. But when you mentioned the dark matter, dark energy and its possible role in the biosphere, It opens a whole new world of imagination, exploration if you may. So how do people insist so much of non-existence of something, when we haven't even managed to scratch the surface yet?